Literature DB >> 27556273

Preoperative Assessment of Pancreatic Cancer with FDG PET/MR Imaging versus FDG PET/CT Plus Contrast-enhanced Multidetector CT: A Prospective Preliminary Study.

Ijin Joo1, Jeong Min Lee1, Dong Ho Lee1, Eun Sun Lee1, Jin Chul Paeng1, Soo Jin Lee1, Jin-Young Jang1, Sun-Whe Kim1, Ji Kon Ryu1, Kyoung-Bun Lee1.   

Abstract

Purpose To determine the diagnostic performance of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the preoperative assessment of pancreatic cancer in comparison with that of FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) plus contrast material-enhanced multidetector CT. Materials and Methods This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board; written informed consent was obtained. Thirty-seven patients with 39 pancreatic tumors underwent preoperative FDG PET/MR imaging, PET/CT, and contrast-enhanced multidetector CT. The authors measured maximal and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVmean, respectively) of pancreatic cancer at PET/MR imaging and PET/CT. Two radiologists independently reviewed the two imaging sets (set 1, PET/MR imaging; set 2, PET/CT plus multidetector CT) to determine tumor resectability according to a five-point scale, N stage (N0 or N positive), and M stage (M0 or M1). With use of clinical-surgical-pathologic findings as the standard of reference (n = 20), diagnostic performances of the two imaging sets were compared by using the McNemar test. Results Both SUVmax and SUVmean of pancreatic tumors showed strong correlations between PET/MR imaging and PET/CT (r = 0.897 and 0.890, respectively; P < .001). The diagnostic performance of PET/MR imaging was not significantly different from that of PET/CT plus multidetector CT in the assessment of tumor resectability (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.891 vs 0.776, respectively, for reviewer 1 [P = .109] and 0.859 vs 0.797 for reviewer 2 [P = .561]), N stage (accuracy: 54% [seven of 13 patients] vs 31% [four of 13 patients]; P = .250 for both reviewers), and M stage (accuracy: 94% [16 of 17 patients] vs 88% [15 of 17 patients] for reviewer 1 [P > .999] and 94% [16 of 17 patients] vs 82% [14 of 17 patients] for reviewer 2 [P = .500]). Conclusion FDG PET/MR imaging showed a diagnostic performance similar to that of PET/CT plus contrast-enhanced multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of the resectability and staging of pancreatic tumors. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27556273     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152798

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  16 in total

Review 1.  White paper on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from society of abdominal radiology's disease-focused panel for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Part II, update on imaging techniques and screening of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals.

Authors:  Naveen M Kulkarni; Lorenzo Mannelli; Marc Zins; Priya R Bhosale; Hina Arif-Tiwari; Olga R Brook; Elizabeth M Hecht; Fay Kastrinos; Zhen Jane Wang; Erik V Soloff; Parag P Tolat; Guillermo Sangster; Jason Fleming; Eric P Tamm; Avinash R Kambadakone
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-03

2.  Summary of the First ISMRM-SNMMI Workshop on PET/MRI: Applications and Limitations.

Authors:  Thomas A Hope; Zahi A Fayad; Kathryn J Fowler; Dawn Holley; Andrei Iagaru; Alan B McMillan; Patrick Veit-Haiback; Robert J Witte; Greg Zaharchuk; Ciprian Catana
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 3.  The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatic Cancer Staging in the Era of Neoadjuvant Therapy and Personalised Medicine.

Authors:  Miguel Bispo; Susana Marques; Ricardo Rio-Tinto; Paulo Fidalgo; Jacques Devière
Journal:  GE Port J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-09-07

4.  Hybrid PET/MRI in major cancers: a scoping review.

Authors:  Anni Morsing; Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt; Mie Holm Vilstrup; Sara Elisabeth Wallenius; Oke Gerke; Henrik Petersen; Allan Johansen; Thomas Lund Andersen; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  Use of imaging as staging and surgical planning for pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Andrew Hieu Nguyen; Laleh G Melstrom
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 7.293

Review 6.  KSNM60 in Clinical Nuclear Oncology.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Moon; Young Seok Cho; Joon Young Choi
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-08-31

7.  Multiparametric PET/MR imaging biomarkers are associated with overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Bang-Bin Chen; Yu-Wen Tien; Ming-Chu Chang; Mei-Fang Cheng; Yu-Ting Chang; Shih-Hung Yang; Chih-Horng Wu; Ting-Chun Kuo; I-Lun Shih; Ruoh-Fang Yen; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 8.  [Hybrid imaging of the abdomen and pelvis. German version].

Authors:  Krista Elise Suarez-Weiss; Alexander Herold; Debra Gervais; Edwin Palmer; Bárbara Amorim; Joseph D King; Li Weier; Tajmir Shahein; Hanna Bernstine; Liran Domachevsk; Lina Garcia Cañamaque; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; David Groshar; Onofrio A Catalano
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 0.635

9.  Impact of PET/MRI in the Treatment of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Felipe S Furtado; Cristina R Ferrone; Susanna I Lee; Mark Vangel; David A Rosman; Colin Weekes; Motaz Qadan; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; David P Ryan; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Theodore S Hong; Jeffrey W Clark; Robin Striar; David Groshar; Lina G Cañamaque; Lale Umutlu; Onofrio A Catalano
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 10.  Contemporary Management of Localized Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Anuhya Kommalapati; Sri Harsha Tella; Gaurav Goyal; Wen Wee Ma; Amit Mahipal
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2018-01-20       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.